Improved Diagnosis through Diastolic Hyperemia-Free Ratio (DFR) over Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) in Intermediate Coronary Lesions.
Diastolic Hyperemia Free Ratio
Fractional Flow Reserve
Intermediate Coronary Artery Stenosis
Journal
Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine
ISSN: 2572-9292
Titre abrégé: Cardiol Cardiovasc Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101721428
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
medline:
9
8
2023
pubmed:
9
8
2023
entrez:
9
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the fractional flow reserve (FFR) and diastolic hyperemia-free ratio (DFR) measurements in a population with intermediate coronary artery stenosis and improve the diagnosis. Visual assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity, particularly in intermediate lesions, is prone to errors in decision-making. FFR provides a reliable assessment of functional severity in these cases but requires hyperemia induction by adenosine, which has side effects and increased cost. DFR is a novel hyperemia-independent index, which could be used as an alternative to adenosine-based hyperemia induction. Between September 2019 to March 2020, 25 patients with 38 intermediate coronary stenotic lesions were included in the study. All patients underwent assessment of whole cycle Pd/Pa (ratio of distal coronary pressure to proximal aortic pressure), DFR and FFR. Mean whole cycle Pd/Pa, DFR and FFR were 0.93±0.06, 0.88±0.09, and 0.85±0.08, respectively. A significant positive correlation between DFR and FFR [r = 0.74; p<0.001] was observed. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.90. DFR-only strategy with a treatment cut-off of ≤0.89 showed a diagnostic agreement with the FFR-only strategy in 74% of lesions, with a sensitivity of 54%, specificity of 82%, a positive predictive value of 60%, and a negative predictive value of 79%. Real-time DFR measurements show a clinically reliable correlation with FFR. Hence, using DFR is likely to avoid adenosine administration as well as reduce the cost and procedural time. Further studies with a larger sample size would be ideal to evaluate specific cut-off values and endpoints.
Sections du résumé
Objectives
UNASSIGNED
To compare the fractional flow reserve (FFR) and diastolic hyperemia-free ratio (DFR) measurements in a population with intermediate coronary artery stenosis and improve the diagnosis.
Background
UNASSIGNED
Visual assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity, particularly in intermediate lesions, is prone to errors in decision-making. FFR provides a reliable assessment of functional severity in these cases but requires hyperemia induction by adenosine, which has side effects and increased cost. DFR is a novel hyperemia-independent index, which could be used as an alternative to adenosine-based hyperemia induction.
Methods and Results
UNASSIGNED
Between September 2019 to March 2020, 25 patients with 38 intermediate coronary stenotic lesions were included in the study. All patients underwent assessment of whole cycle Pd/Pa (ratio of distal coronary pressure to proximal aortic pressure), DFR and FFR. Mean whole cycle Pd/Pa, DFR and FFR were 0.93±0.06, 0.88±0.09, and 0.85±0.08, respectively. A significant positive correlation between DFR and FFR [r = 0.74; p<0.001] was observed. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.90. DFR-only strategy with a treatment cut-off of ≤0.89 showed a diagnostic agreement with the FFR-only strategy in 74% of lesions, with a sensitivity of 54%, specificity of 82%, a positive predictive value of 60%, and a negative predictive value of 79%.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Real-time DFR measurements show a clinically reliable correlation with FFR. Hence, using DFR is likely to avoid adenosine administration as well as reduce the cost and procedural time. Further studies with a larger sample size would be ideal to evaluate specific cut-off values and endpoints.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
108-116Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL118067
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing Interests The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Références
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Dec;11(12):e006911
pubmed: 30562091
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Apr 8;63(13):1253-1261
pubmed: 24211503
EuroIntervention. 2013 Feb 22;8(10):1157-65
pubmed: 23256988
EuroIntervention. 2013 May 20;9(1):91-101
pubmed: 22917666
J Invasive Cardiol. 2010 Jun;22(6):260-5
pubmed: 20516504
Neth Heart J. 2018 Aug;26(7-8):385-392
pubmed: 29923057
Am J Cardiol. 1997 May 1;79(9):1239-41
pubmed: 9164893
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Oct 9;168(4):4070-5
pubmed: 23890849
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 May;8(6):824-833
pubmed: 25999106
N Engl J Med. 1979 Jul 12;301(2):61-8
pubmed: 449946
Am Heart J. 2009 Jan;157(1):132-40
pubmed: 19081409
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Nov 15;98(6):1057-1065
pubmed: 33211381
Curr Cardiol Rev. 2015;11(3):209-19
pubmed: 25329922
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 15;360(3):213-24
pubmed: 19144937
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Apr 10;59(15):1392-402
pubmed: 22154731
N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376(19):1813-1823
pubmed: 28317438
N Engl J Med. 2012 Sep 13;367(11):991-1001
pubmed: 22924638
Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 14;40(31):2585-2594
pubmed: 31329863
N Engl J Med. 1984 Mar 29;310(13):819-24
pubmed: 6700670
Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2009 Dec;9(3):272-8
pubmed: 21509310
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Nov;9(11):
pubmed: 27834663